|
|
Tuesday, April 22

America Bewitched?
by
Roger
on Tue 22 Apr 2008 06:00 AM PDT
Most polls quoted these days claim that anywhere from 80 to 90% of Americans believe in God. Some people find comfort in this statistic, but it actually says very little about the God or god they believe in. For example, included in that number are a rising number of pagans and witches. A recent MTV.com feature highlights some of the popular incentives for practicing "the Craft":
Witches do not worship Satan and hardly ever practice black magic. Witches or Wiccans, who practice similar strains of Paganism,
may follow numerous ancient, Earth-based traditions of worship, but
have a few simple beliefs in common: 1) a deep, spiritual respect for
nature; 2) worship of a deity (or god) who is equally male and female (priests and priestesses have equal power); and 3)
accountability for all your own actions. In other words, being a witch
includes believing in environmentalism, equality of the sexes and karma. The following is from an article on witches in Salem and a recent public educational forum:
Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of
their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism
is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. “Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,” she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and
Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies
courses are offered in major universities, she said. Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: "A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that
they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture
fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle "The Craft" and the "Harry Potter" series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one)." The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream. As people in our culture look ever in toward themselves, they care less
for objective truth and more for what feels right to them:
But many young people enter the Craft in reaction to a very
conservative religious upbringing — Southern Baptist, perhaps, or
Catholic. "Some people don't feel God in the church, so they seek out
different expressions of God that are more personal or mystic," said
Raven, who has mentored younger Pagans and is active in the online
community. "[Witchcraft] is revolting against common views of God.
That's a huge part of the appeal, especially for young people — that
you don't have to follow the herd."
The videos (which I recommend watching- the second starts after the first concludes) feature a recurring theme: "there is no wrong way
to worship." This is why Wiccans only have "a few simple beliefs in
common." Though united in these few things, every Wiccan approaches
religion like a buffet- only taking those things that appeal to them.
Religious belief is no longer in the realm of objective truth, it is
now private expression.
Wicca and related pagan religions make up just some of the hundreds of options put before Americans today, but it all boils down to two options: Will you seek the true God of the universe who refuses to to be crafted according to your mutable desires, or will you idolize and worship feelings that don't exist apart from yourself?
Are we as Christians prepared to preach the gospel to those who choose the latter?
Christian Answers for a New Age has some great articles on this topic.
Articles and books by Peter Jones are also an excellent resource. I especially recommend Capturing the Pagan Mind.
Friday, April 18

Doing What's Right in Our Own Eyes
by
Amy
on Fri 18 Apr 2008 09:35 AM PDT
There's a story in Judges about a man who sends his concubine out to be abused by the men of the town in order to save his own skin. When he finds her dead in the morning, he sends parts of her body to all the tribes of Israel as a shocking, visual wake-up call revealing the depths of the country's moral depravity.
I imagine that the people of Israel who heard of this felt a nausea, horror, and sense of impending judgment similar to what I felt reading this today:
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts [an art student at Yale] will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body . . . "I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
There's a detailed description of the exhibit in the article, but there's no way I'm going to post it here. All I can say is that our country is hurtling down a dark, ugly road if we're producing people like this woman. How did the creation and destruction of human life become a clever way of "sparking conversation"? We had better wake up.
Yale now insists that the whole project is a fake, but Shvarts is sticking to her story, saying her purpose was to point out that the "central ambiguity [of not knowing whether or not she was actually pregnant] defies a clear definition of the act [of miscarriage]. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming--an authorial act." Second, she meant to "assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form, It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." It was her goal to use her body outside the "narrative of reproduction" in order to shock people into acknowledging that it is the "prerogative of every individual" to explore other uses for his or her body. (This, of course, would be absolutely true in a postmodern, Darwinist, Creatorless world.)
Connected with the obvious atrociousness of Shvarts sick use of human life is her view of art:
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."
Art is a medium for politics and ideologies? Whatever happened to goodness, truth, and beauty? To uplifting the viewer? Where did this new grotesque and ugly standard of art come from? Why is this the only standard she knows of? It's not hard to figure out that just like in the days of Judges, a country that loses sight of the living, holy, good God will soon be stripped of all beauty, and everything--good or evil--rather than being things to delight in or abhor, will be reduced to mere "statements."
Because of God, there is real beauty and it's tragic that so many people in our culture have never tasted it. It's easy to forget when we're feasting on the glory of God that most people have no idea a banquet like this even exists. Let this remind us of our responsibility to tell them.
(HT: Steve Wagner)
Thursday, April 17

Interview with David Wells, Part 2
by
Roger
on Thu 17 Apr 2008 06:00 AM PDT
Click here Part One of the interview.
 |
One of the criticisms made of new media platforms (such as blogging and social networks like MySpace and Facebook) is that they encourage fascination with the self. How might Christians involved in new media avoid the trap of self-fascination? | Virtual reality can simply be a world of information or it can be the world into which the lonely and the disconnected find solace and “relationships” which have none of the human reality of actual relationships. Virtual relationships are an illusion; real relationships are what we are made for by creation. So, we need simply to ask ourselves how we are using these technologies and why. What needs are they meeting? The need for information or for communication is one thing; the need for distraction, or to feel connected is something else. Technology can’t really do too much which is healthy along these lines if a basis of relationship is not already there.
You draw a strict line between spiritual practices that are pagan in nature and biblical in nature. How do some evangelical practices today reflect pagan spirituality rather than biblical spirituality?
The key is that biblical spirituality comes from “above” and pagan spirituality comes from “below.” The language of “above” is used over and over again in Scripture of Christ’s incarnation from a realm which we as humans and as sinners cannot access. God is, as it were, beyond our reach and beyond our natural radar. That fact, however, is not obvious to us. If it were, we who are sinners would not be seeking him on our own terms, in our own way, and assuming that he can be accessed when we want and for whatever it is that we want. These assumptions make up the spirituality from “below” and while it is exactly what pagans have always done it is now exactly what contemporary consumers are doing. The sacred is there to be used when we want, how we want, and for whatever needs we have just as products are which we can buy at the mall.
Many of the emergents who teach pagan spiritual practices "from below," as you've identified them, believe their spirituality is "from above" because the practices are based on the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Is this just the language game, or can the Spirit use practices "from below" to teach and enrich the lives of God's people?
No, we should not play games with ourselves. The work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is tied to the Word written and the Word living. The work of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the Scripture he inspired in the first place and, second, to apply the work of Christ to people today. So, in this sense, the work of the Spirit coincides with the work of Christ. Why else would Scripture speak of the Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ” or “his Spirit”? When people start ascribing to the Spirit their own internal intuitions, senses about life, desires, and yearnings, they will soon find themselves adrift if they have not asked themselves two questions: first, have I checked what I am sensing against the (objective) revelation of God’s Word? Second, is what I am sensing leading me to a deeper understanding of, and more faithful service to Christ? If we have no answers to these questions, let us speak no more about the “Spirit” doing this and doing that!
Some believe that it is the churches that have neglected the reciting and teaching of Christian creeds and confessions that have fallen out of historic Protestantism today. How effective do you think creeds and confessions might be in helping to rebuild the evangelical church?
Creeds and confessions are secondary reflections on biblical truth which seek to capture what it is teaching in succinct ways. They are very helpful to those who, at a primary level, are daily engaged with the truth of Scripture. And, almost incidentally, they are reminders—since most come from the past-- that we belong to a single people of God which stretches across time and is found in almost very culture in the world. Creeds and confessions, however, are of little use to those who are strangers to the truth of Scripture.
You conclude that churches must be God centered as opposed to consumer or Self centered. Since most Christians aren't involved in church leadership, how might individuals effect changes toward God centered Protestantism?
It is hard, on the one hand, for those in what used to be called the pew to change the tenor and temper of their churches when their pastors are off chasing success, numbers, and cultural “relevance.” Many churches, on the other hand, deserve the leaders they have because their audiences (may we still say “congregations”?!) are enablers who want their Christianity lite and undemanding. Here are all the symptoms of our decline and among those who yearn for something so much better are the seeds of renewal. May their number grow every day!
Wednesday, April 16

What About the Inquisition?
by
Amy
on Wed 16 Apr 2008 04:00 AM PDT
We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or
later in our discussions with atheists.
Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all
of Christianity? Does it render our past
completely barbaric?
Here's a question that can help clarify the issues involved
with the Inquisition objection: Do you
honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him
for not inventing a computer? Edison
explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb. Was he a colossal failure? Absolutely not. Data (in this case, the data of the physical
world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply. Edison had a less than
perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our
knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us
all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed
since the beginning. Eventually scientific
data would lead to computers, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the
beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time. And even though at the time of the light
bulb's creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws
of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not
discredit science for all time.
Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm
of morality and Christianity. Like the
unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible. And as in the world of science, in the world
of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those
unchanging words into our societies.
This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal--with
many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that
hadn't yet occurred to them. (For
example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not
tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation
made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one
must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)
It's no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had
only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but
the problem was in the application, not in the data. That is, as inevitably as an application of the
facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have
led to the free societies we now see in the West. But one ought not be surprised by the amount
of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on
biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us
to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature. Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging
Bible itself for those societies' slow pace than it does to fault the
always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science. The Bible and nature remained the same even
if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied. And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor
the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely
degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions
we have today.
But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel,
did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today? The answer might be similar to the reason why
He didn't supply them with computers. A
computer would have been completely beyond their grasp. In the same way, Israel
had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that
time. Some things, to be fully understood,
accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time,
learning little by little. Applications
of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a
society. This, in turn, lays the
groundwork for discovering more applications.
What God did do is speak to Israel
where they were. He addressed the world
as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and
New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those
ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today. He told us that we're all--men and women--created
in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in
value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon). We're not to kidnap people and sell them into
slavery (Ex 21:16), we're not to punish people in a way that humiliates them
(Deut 25:3), we're not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the
State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one--rich or poor (Lev
19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)--is to be favored when justice is
dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.
Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific
instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral
weaknesses--stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false
beliefs--have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult,
slow process. This is why the
Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not
successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity. And in fact, it gives further witness to the
truthfulness of the Bible's central message of our desperate need for Jesus and
the forgiveness He provides.
Tuesday, April 15

Interview with David Wells, Part I
by
Roger
on Tue 15 Apr 2008 06:00 AM PDT
|
| In the first chapter of The
Courage to Be Protestant you map out three constituencies that make up the
current evangelical world: classical evangelicalism, church marketers (or
seeker-sensitives), and emergents. To help familiarize our readers with your
book, could you briefly explain each of these groups and the problems they pose
for Christianity? |
What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical
world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold
Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in
recent decades. This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed
by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church. In
Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It
is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.
There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it
is better and others when it is worse. My view is that in important ways
we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural
acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous. It is the deep sense
of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier
evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be
culturally relevant. We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so
that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our
church business. It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The
marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they
have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations
successful. The emergents are in danger of building the Church by
cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a
postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the
way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are
unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.
Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies,
you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells
because there are no consumers for it. When we find consumers we will
find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the
gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling"
the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?
What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in
which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward
costs for having those benefits. That is our paradox. Never have we
had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge,
instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on
average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).
But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or
the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater
and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before. This
is our paradox. Never have we had so much and never have we had so
little. Living in the American consumer Paradise
is....hard! That is why when people come to church, their minds are full
of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions. What
they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and
lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the
workplace. That is what they want from their churches. And that is
what the marketers are intent on giving them.
You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and
Wright to Bell and McLaren. It is that the authority of God functions
separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad
front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its
functioning in the life of the Church today. We are, in fact, autonomous,
freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in
our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals
have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from
God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a
decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread
also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water
down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture
currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals?
We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling,
confusing, and painful. Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where
is God in all of this?” This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of
those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by
sight. We find this hard. We want to be supported by
evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling
narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you
suggest. However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from
those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority
and truthfulness of Scripture.
You state, "It is important for us to remember that
culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates
over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to
be?
Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought
about by the modernization of our world. Our culture is defined by our
urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is
interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic structures in
our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to
place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic. This is what
explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the
themes which they are. So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an
extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from
creation and what has been corrupted. The N.T. understanding of
worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes
sin look normal and righteousness look strange. It takes discernment to
be able to see what is good in culture and what is not. The problem here
is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a
church generation which is simply adrift morally. That is a fact which I
have documented.
A significant criticism in your book is against the
autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches.
You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't
there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of
the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does
a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?
Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined
life is not worth living. That, however, was not what I had in mind.
The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no
compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us
into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and
wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right
and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.” There are millions of
Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.
Friday, March 28

R. C. Sproul Interviews Ben Stein
by
David N
on Fri 28 Mar 2008 10:39 AM PDT
Last night, Ben Stein came to Biola Univeristy to promote his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In the film, Ben Stein invenstigates the employment termination of several University science professors due to their doubts about Darwinism and support of Intelligent Design. Find out more about the film here.
Recently, Dr. R. C. Sproul interviewed Ben Stein about the new film on his radio show, Renewing Your Mind.
Listen to Part One.
Listen to Part Two.
Wednesday, March 26

Interview with Stephen Wagner, Part 2
by
Roger
on Wed 26 Mar 2008 11:11 PM PDT
Here is the conclusion of my interview with Stephen Wagner concerning his book, Common Ground Without
Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. Part 1 can be read here. |  |
How has the media affected our perception of abortion in America?
The
media has led us to believe that most people are pro-choice. In my experience, most people are much more
nuanced than that. Many see themselves
as not fitting into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps. If forced by an opinion poll, they’ll choose,
but if given the chance to explain, they are conflicted. Others just haven’t thought much about
abortion and many are just confused.
In
addition, the media gives us the sense that we’re always discussing
abortion. That’s the most detrimental
thing, because I think it turns people off to creating real, productive
dialogue. One might say, “If everyone’s
always discussing it, why do I need to weigh in? Aren’t people tired of the topic?” Some people are tired of the topic. But not because we’ve really done it justice.
I
think the media treatment of abortion has also led people to believe that the
abortion debate is dominated by angry activists. Although these activists may be the most
vocal and the most concerned, the most productive abortion debate happens
around dinner tables, on college campuses, and at the coffee house. Abortion isn’t just a theoretical issue
people debate. It’s about real decisions
people are making today. And those
decisions are either well-informed or poorly-informed. If we create a better dialogue as a culture,
I think the benefit is women and men making better decisions about abortion. 
| One of your final chapters offers questions for pro-choice advocates to ask
pro-lifers. You claim "they encourage us to examine our inner attitudes
and external personas." (p100) What is it about the typical pro-life
attitude that needs to be confronted?
Pro-life
activists frequently make claims they can’t defend and lack tact in their
discussion of pro-choice concerns. Chapter
11 focuses on common pro-choice concerns and asks, aren’t these concerns
“human” concerns? Can’t we agree with
the pro-choice advocate on her concern for the poor and the difficult
circumstances of unplanned pregnancy?
|
Pro-choice
advocates may see much of the book as coming from a pro-life perspective (it’s
inevitable, since I am pro-life). I
attempted in this chapter to adopt the pro-choice perspective and look
critically at pro-life arguments and tactics through pro-choice eyes. I do this as a matter of course in my
conversations, so it was a natural component to include in a book about trying
to agree with the other side.
At Stand to Reason's website you've provided study guides for both pro-choice
and pro-life advocates to help them clarify the arguments for their position.
Doesn't helping pro-choice advocates improve their arguments work against the
pro-life cause?
The study guides encourage both sides first to clarify their
own arguments and then to look at the best arguments on the other side. This is the healthiest way to engage in
dialogue about our beliefs with ourselves and with others. So, I see both study guides as a service to both
pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them think more clearly. I don’t see how helping pro-choice advocates think
more clearly can possibly harm the pro-life cause. It’s just goodwill to encourage them to look
at their own position first. Perhaps the
fact that I’m tired of hearing arguments like “you’re a man, so shut up” also
motivates me but I genuinely want to help the pro-choice advocate think more
deeply about their position.
I’m not afraid of pro-choice arguments. The truth about abortion and the unborn will
win the day, if it’s looked at carefully.
So, I say, evaluate the strongest reasons on both sides of the
debate. There’s no danger in that. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates should
do this. Far from harming the pro-life
cause, these guides get people thinking critically about their beliefs.
I suppose it’s possible that some pro-choice advocates will
become more convinced of their beliefs, because they find in the guide intellectually
sophisticated ways of expressing those beliefs.
But if they’re truly open to reconsidering their pro-choice position,
they’ll honestly look also at the best arguments for the pro-life position, as
I’ve suggested in the guide. Then it’s the
pro-life community’s responsibility to make sure our arguments are truly
persuasive. And if our best arguments
don’t persuade, they might not be very good after all. Yet, our arguments are very good and persuasive…to
the open heart.
Underneath it all, there’s more here than the
arguments. When pro-choice advocates
reject our best arguments, I suspect it’s the emotional and spiritual aspects
of the person that are making it difficult for them to change their minds. Seeking common ground in the conversation
gives more opportunity for those emotional and spiritual elements to breathe
and gives each of us space to attend to them.
Monday, March 24

Interview with Stephen Wagner, Part 1
by
Roger
on Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:42 PM PDT
 | Stephen Wagner speaks to and trains a variety of audiences on pro-life and bioethics issues as part of the ministry of Stand to Reason. His new book, Common Ground Without
Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion, challenges advocates on both sides of the abortion issue to have more respectful and fruitful conversations. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. The conclusion of the interview will be posted on Thursday.
|
As the title indicates, the point of your book is to build common ground
between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Many people on both sides of the
issue simply want to persuade their opponents- why should they be interested in
finding common ground?
I
don’t see a person who disagrees with me primarily as a sort of potential
convert. I see her as a human
being. Human beings deserve to be
treated with respect; they deserve to be heard.
It’s troubling that some Christians take the Great Commission as a
directive to think of non-Christians as “gospel fodder,” people who are only
valuable if converted. Greg Koukl at
Stand to Reason coined that term and I’ve found it helpful in my thinking about
the abortion debate. I am a pro-life
advocate, but I don’t see the pro-choice advocate simply as a future notch in
my pro-life belt.
Now,
is it important to persuade people of the pro-life position? I believe the pro-life position is true, and
surely it’s vital to help people come to see it as true. But if I don’t come with an attitude of
listening and appreciating this human being as a fellow truth seeker, I’ll miss
the forest for the trees…or the human for the ideas. Since persuasion is important, though, common
ground is all the more important. It’s diplomatic
common sense. Take the pro-life volunteers
I trained for a recent outreach in Arizona. As we shared stories of our interactions,
many of the volunteers shared about how common ground helped them move the
dialogue forward to discuss disagreements in a productive way. In the book I picture common ground as the
fuel in a car. You’ll need it at the
beginning of a conversation. And you’ll
need to refuel with common ground along the way in order to keep the
conversation moving.
Early on in the book you state, "I believe that you and I are both seeking
truth, so we have at least one item of common ground." (p17) I suspect
that some pro-lifers won't like this because that they believe pro-choicers are
more interested in convenience than truth. Why should we believe people we
disagree with are interested in seeking truth? Do you honestly believe every
person you talk with is seeking truth?
Anyone
who’s spent even a few hours talking to college students, or people of any age
for that matter, knows that many people value convenience or pleasure or
entertainment more than the search for truth.
That’s uncontroversial and I’d be a fool to claim otherwise. I think it’s also uncontroversial, though,
that every human seeks truth on some level. You can be just as certain that the college
student who seems to only care about sex or entertainment also cares deep in
his soul about knowing what’s true. No
one wakes up in the morning and says, “I’d really like to find someone who will
deceive me today.” People care about not
being deceived, and conversely, they care about knowing the truth. Our job, as those who believe there’s truth
about abortion, is to help people bring their innate love for truth to the
surface, so they can fix their conscious gaze on it and evaluate their beliefs.
You spend most of your time in the book exploring 25 questions you believe will
help build common ground. Why are questions so important in this endeavor?
It’s
interesting that you would use a question to ask why questions are so important!
Questions
are the only way that dialogue happens.
It’s the way we signal to others that we want to hear their
opinion. It’s also one way to signal
that we are positioning ourselves as partners rather than enemies (although this
also requires asking the question with a certain kind of attitude). I framed the content of the book in a series
of questions because I wanted to help the reader see in a tangible way how to
start a conversation and how to keep it productive. Asking people what they think and why
is much more likely to help them change their minds than telling them
they are wrong.
The first question you pose in an effort to build common ground is "What
do you think about late-term abortion?" You cite a 2003 Gallup poll that suggests "68% of
Americans oppose abortion in the second trimester and 84% oppose it in the
third trimester." (p39) Why do you think these polls statistics are so
high?
Your
question is a great one…to ask anyone we’re in dialogue with. “If you are against late-term abortion, or
think it should be illegal…why?” I think
responses to that question are varied. Many
people just think the unborn is a baby at this point. Some people think the fetus in the second or
third trimester looks like older human beings.
Essentially, “It looks like me, so I’m repulsed by killing it.” Others cite the fact that the fetus likely
has higher cortical activity in the late second and third trimester. So, this question gets us quickly back to the
main issue in the abortion debate: Is the unborn a human being who has the same
rights as the rest of us? Many say “yes”
in the last half of the pregnancy.
You note that we often hear this common sentiment presented in the media:
"The majority of Americans are 'pro-choice' and oppose restrictions on
abortion." (p62) Do you believe there is a 'pro-choice' bias in the media?
I’m
not sure I’d put it that way. I think
the media’s treatment of the abortion issue shows a “pro-shallow” bias and a
“pro-controversy” bias. People in the
media usually have only seconds to communicate ideas and must use sound bites. Plus, on television, a simplistic
representation of extremes plays better than complex dialogue. So, it’s easy to report poll results, but
thorough analysis takes too long. Neil
Postman was right when he criticized the television medium as being
intrinsically an entertainment medium that makes it difficult to get accurate
facts. People in the media could minimize
this liability, though, by only publicizing polls that ask specific questions
about specific abortions at specific times in pregnancy. Only then can we really understand what
people think.
But
the fault is not all the media’s.
Pollsters typically serve up polls that ask very vague questions about whether
people are for or against abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against Roe
v. Wade. As I explain in the book, the
polls rarely define what all of these terms and court decisions mean, so the
poll results actually portray an inaccurate picture of public opinion. But when the media publicizes this inaccurate
picture, it becomes a part of our collective consciousness about public opinion
on abortion. We come to believe that
what the media reported is “just the way it is.”
The
most serious problem with polls and the media, though, is not the polls or the
media. It’s us, the viewers. If many of us believe these shallow and
inaccurate public opinion polls, it’s our own fault. We should be more careful.
Monday, March 3

Providence and Time on Lost
by
Amy
on Mon 03 Mar 2008 03:00 AM PST
(Warning: Spoilers ahead, touching on the last couple
seasons. If you don't watch Lost,
turn off your computer now and go rent Season One!)
I've mentioned before that I've always been interested in
stories that involve time travel of some sort, so I've enjoyed the direction Lost
began to take last season. But there's something different about this
series. Normally, the type of time
travel described in a story will fall into one of two categories: 1) The
people who go back in time change things, thereby creating a new future or even
a new parallel universe (e.g., Back to
the Future), or 2) The people go back in time, but the actions they take
there don't change anything in the future because it was always the case that their
actions in the past led up to the future they've always known. That is, time is set--all of history already
happened, and they already acted as a part of it (e.g., the ending of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure).
The time travel in Lost,
on the other hand, describes a third kind of time--one governed by Providence
or fate. Certain characters go back in
time and can change things (history is still fluid, as it is in Type 1), but no
matter what they do, they can't ultimately thwart the purpose of God or fate
(just who is in charge remains to be seen). So, Desmond can keep changing the future by
repeatedly saving one of the characters from death, but eventually, the death
of that character will be accomplished by the one who is governing the flow of
history, moving it in a precise direction for a purpose.
It would seem, at first glance, that J.J. Abrams (the creator
of Lost) believes in God or some sort
of designer. But, as with his other work
(e.g., Alias), he creates a scenario that
I suspect reflects a kind of battle going on in his own head: Some characters see intelligent design and/or
evidence of the supernatural in what's happening, and some see only naturalistic
explanations. In Lost, that inner-Abrams battle is characterized as
"faith" vs. "science," Locke vs. Jack, purpose vs. random
circumstances. What's interesting is
that you're never quite sure which side will win, or even which side should win.
It's as if Abrams wants
the supernatural to be true, but he can never quite get there because he
loves science and can't see a way to bring the two into harmony--and even
though he feels a pull towards the supernatural, he's a little suspicious of
the people who embrace it. They seem
somewhat...unstable. So he keeps the two
perspectives (supernatural and natural) existing side by side, almost as two
separate stories, with each pretending the other doesn't exist--never touching,
except to occasionally butt heads.
Sounds like Abrams's ideas are a good reflection of what our
culture has done with religion and rationality (which they wrongly equate with
naturalism), and it's a sad, compartmentalized way to live. The two can
be brought together; we can live as whole, integrated people who embrace God and rationality because they embrace each other in an integrated, whole reality. "Live together,
die alone," right? Someone send
this man a copy of Total Truth.
Friday, February 22

Souled Out to Propaganda and Hypocrisy
by
Amy
on Fri 22 Feb 2008 12:15 AM PST
A friend alerted me to a description of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right after the author, E. J. Dionne Jr., was featured on an hour of the Hugh Hewitt Show. From the publisher, Princeton University Press:
The religious and political winds are changing. Tens of millions of religious Americans are reclaiming faith from those who would abuse it for narrow, partisan, and ideological purposes. And more and more secular Americans are discovering common ground with believers on the great issues of social justice, peace, and the environment. In Souled Out, award-winning journalist and commentator E. J. Dionne explains why the era of the Religious Right--and the crude exploitation of faith for political advantage--is over.
Now, this is amazing. If you vote on the right because you believe in those positions--and, in fact, believe they better reflect Christian values and goals--you are "selling out," and "abusing faith," and (from the next paragraph) you are a "prop for the powers that be" who is being "crudely exploited for political advantage." But all this would be over if you would only learn to vote on the left! If you favor positions on the left for exactly the same reasons, then you're just doing the right thing. I think I know why people like Dionne are unable to see the unbelievable hypocrisy of this, and I'll explain in a moment. But first, another excerpt:
Based on years of research and writing, Souled Out shows that the end of the Religious Right doesn't signal the decline of evangelical Christianity but rather its disentanglement from a political machine that sold it out to a narrow electoral agenda of such causes as opposition to gay marriage and abortion. With insightful portraits of leading contemporary religious figures from Rick Warren and Richard Cizik to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Dionne shows that our great religions have always preached a broad message of hope for more just human arrangements and refused to be mere props for the powers that be.
The idea that all politically conservative Christians care about is abortion and same-sex marriage is an embarrassingly misguided one, and yet very widespread (I believe this goes back to the left's unwillingness to understand people on the right or take them at their word). Dionne is honestly unaware that people could possibly think that the issues of justice (including economic) and social good are all better addressed by conservative positions than liberal ones. Have they ever even heard of the Acton Institute? No, for Dionne and many of the religious left, the only possibility is that conservative leaders have deviously trapped gullible religious people in a "narrow electoral agenda."
One has to make a deep, unexamined assumption to end up with this inexcusable blindness. The assumption is: liberal policies are obviously moral and conservative policies are obviously immoral. Therefore, they conclude, if any religious person thought about anything other than abortion and same-sex marriage, then naturally, he would be on the left instead of the right. Therefore, widening his scope of issues would keep him from voting for conservative candidates and thereby becoming a "prop" of the right. (How it could be that taking on and promoting uniquely leftist policies would not simply cause these newly leftist Christians to become "props" of leaders on the left is never actually explained.)
It's amazing--and a little scary--how rarely people on the religious left examine themselves and their rhetoric and how little they understand conservatives. This doesn't bode well for robust and productive debate anytime in the near future.
|
|